Madras High Court
J.Sundharambal vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 3 January, 2025
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
W.P.(MD) No.828 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On 31.07.2024
Pronounced On 03.01.2025
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.(MD) No.828 of 2024
and W.M.P(MD) Nos.840 & 842 of 2024
J.Sundharambal
...Petitioner
Versus
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
Fort St.George, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 034.
3.The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai.
4.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
Ellis Nagar, Madurai.
5.The Assistant Commissioner,
1/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.828 of 2024
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
Madurai.
6.The Tahsildar,
Vadipatti Taluk,
Madurai District.
7.The Commissioner of Police,
Alagarkovil Road,
Madurai City,
Madurai – 625 002.
8.The Superintendent of Police,
Idol Wing – CID,
Police Training College – First Floor,
Ashok Nagar,
Chennai – 600 083.
9.The Block Development Officer,
Madurai,
Madurai District.
10.C.Balu
11.Muniyandi
12.Shanthees
...Respondents
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the
records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in
Moo.Mu.No.25901/2017, dated 26.07.2017, quash the same and
consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 5 to take up the temple
2/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.828 of 2024
administration and recover the properties of the said temple situated at
Sambakulam Village under S.Nos.76, 77, 78, 79, 83, 38, 39, 93, 114, 94, 95,
93, 90, 88, 89 in Patta No.2.
For Petitioner : Ms.J.Padhmavathi Devi
For Respondents – 1 to 6 & 9 : Mr.P.Subbaraj,
Special Government Pleader
For Respondents – 7 & 8 : Mr.A.Albert James,
Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)
For Respondent – 10 : Mr.S.Muniyaraj
For Respondents – 11 & 12 : Mr.H.Arumugam
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent in Moo.Mu.No.25901/2017 dated 26.07.2017, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 5 to take up the temple administration and recover the properties of the said temple situated at Sambakulam Village under S.Nos. 76, 77, 78, 79, 83, 38, 39, 93, 114, 94, 95, 93, 90, 88 and 89 in Patta No.2.
2. Operative portion of the impugned order dated 26.07.2017 of the fourth respondent is captured in the order dated 23.06.2023 in W.P. 3/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.828 of 2024 (MD)No.2324 of 2023. It reads as under:-
''2. Today, a communication of the second respondent dated 26.07.2017 in %.K.vz;.25901/2017/,1 has placed for consideration of the Court, wherein it is stated as follows:-
''ghh;it 4-y; fhZk; Fwpg;gpy;> kJiu cjtp Mizah; mDg;gpAs;s mwpf;ifapy; rhkjpapDs; nghJkf;fs; topghL kw;Wk; gpuNtrpg;gJ ,y;iy vd;w jw;Nghija #o;epiyapy; fPiuj;Jiw jputpaypq;Nf];tuh; rkhjp 1959k; tUl ,e;J rka mwf;nfhilfs; rl;lg;gphpT 6(20)y; nrhy;yg;gl;Ls;s nghJ Nfhapy; vd;w tiuaiwf;Fs;Nsh> rl;lg;gphpT 6(15)(6) kw;Wk; 6(18)d; cl;gphpT(1)y; nrhy;yg;gl;Ls;s rkhjp vd;w tiuaiwf;Fs;Nsh jw;Nghijf;F nfhz;L tu ,ayhj epiy cs;sJ vdj; njhptpj;Js;shh;.
Nkw;gb mwpf;ifapid Vw;W> ,g;nghUspy; fhZk; rkhjpapid ,e;J rka mwepiyaj;Jiwapd; fl;Lg;ghl;by; nfhz;L tUtij iftpLkhW njhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ.''
3. Recording the same, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.''
3. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(MD)No.2324 of 2023 before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents 2, 4 and 5 herein to recover the properties of Thiraviyalingeswarar Temple as per the properties details stated in the Patta No.2 of Sambakulam Village and consequently, direct the respondents 2, 4 and 5 herein to take up the administration of Temple and its properties for conduct of customary poojas in the Temple out of the profits from the Thiraviyalingeswarar Temple properties.
4. W.P.(MD) No.2324 of 2023 was disposed off on 23.06.2023 in the light of the impugned order dated 26.07.2017 of the fourth respondent herein, the Joint Commissioner, in proceedings bearing reference %.K.vz;. 4/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.828 of 2024 25901/2017/,1. The order passed by this Court on 23.06.2023 in W.P. (MD)No.2324 of 2023 captures the impugned order dated 26.07.2017 of the fourth respondent in his proceedings bearing reference %.K.vz;. 25901/2017/,1.
5. The impugned order has been passed by the fourth respondent pursuant to the following orders/communications:-
''1. Proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner, Madurai, bearing reference in Na.Ka.No.2689/2014/Aa1, dated 23.07.2015.
2. Proceedings of the Commissioner bearing reference in Na.Ka.No.38020/2015/E1, dated 18.09.2015.
3. Proceedings of the Commissioner bearing reference in Na.Ka.No.25901/2017/E1, dated 24.05.2017.
4. Proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner, Madurai, bearing reference in Na.Ka.No.2689/2014/Aa1, dated 19.06.2017.''
6. The report of the fifth respondent Assistant Commissioner, Madurai, in his proceedings bearing reference in Na.Ka.No.2689/2014/Aa1, dated 19.06.2017 at above Sl.No.4 has been extracted in the impugned order dated 26.07.2017 in %.K.vz;.25901/2017/,1.
7. The petitioner and the respondents 11 & 12 trace their common 5/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.828 of 2024 ancestry from Rengasamy Pillai and Muniyandi Pillai, who was the brother of Rengasamy Pillai. The said Rengasamy Pillai had a son named Thayumanasami. The said Thayumanasami was married thrice as per the family tree filed before this Court. The family tree that has been filed before this Court indicates that the name of the 1st wife of Thayumanasami was not known. The 2nd and 3rd wives of Thayumanasami were Mangaiyarkarasi and Kanniammal. The petitioner traces her ancestry from the 3rd wife of Thayumanasamy namely, Kanniammal. The petitioner is the granddaughter of Kanniammal from her daughter Indira and her father Kasthuira Pillai, who is said to be the adopted son of one Thiraviyam Pillai, the 1st son of Muniyandi Pillai.
8. The respondents 11 & 12 namely, Muniyandi and Shanthees are the great grand-children of the petitioner. The 2nd wife of the said Thayumanasami namely, Mangaiyarkarasi had a daughter named, Pitchaiammal and a minor son named Chelliah who died at the age of 7 years.
9. A Samadhi viz., a grave memorial is said to have been dedicated in memory of minor son of Thayumanasami and Mangaiyarkarasi, the 2 nd wife 6/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.828 of 2024 of Thayumanasami namely, Chelliah and Thiraviam Pillai, the son of Muniyandi Pillai / husband of Rani Ponnammal.
10. The said Thiraviam Pillai was the son of Muniyandi Pillai who is said to be the younger brother of the other common ancestor Rengasamy Pillai through whom the petitioner directly traces her ancestry as her father Kasthuria Pillai is supposed to be the adopted son of the said Thiraviam Pillai. After the death of Rengasamy Pillai, his younger brother Muniyandi Pillai is said to have inherited the entire estate which were in the name of Rengasamy Pillai.
11. During his lifetime, the said Thiraviam Pillai, S/o.Muniyandi Pillai is said to be executed a Will dated 28.04.1937. In the said Will, his wife Rani Ponnammal was appointed as a Executrix of the properties of the family.
12. Rani Ponnammal, the wife of Thiraviam Pillai S/o. Muniyandi Pillai is said to have executed a Will dated 27.01.1961 in favour of Pitchaiammal, daughter of Mangaiyarkarasi, the 2nd wife of Thayumanasami. The said Pitchaiammal is said to be the 2nd wife of one 7/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.828 of 2024 Muthusamy Pillai, the 1st wife being Seethalakshmi as per the family tree. The respondents 11 & 12 are said to be the grand sons and great grand son. Therefore, the 1st wife of Muthusamy Pillai through her son Kalyanasundaram, they trace their ancestors from the 2nd wife of Kalyanasundaram namely, Mookammal, the 1st wife being Sundaram Ammal.
13. As per the said Will dated 27.01.1961, part of the lands which were purchased by the common ancestor Rengasamy Pillai and Muniyandi Pillai were to be converted as a grave memorial (Samadhi) for Chellaiah, the minor son of Thayumanasami, S/o.Rengasamy Pillai. Respondents 11 & 12 also trace their ancestry from the same common ancestor of the petitioner namely, Rengasamy Pillai.
14. They are through Pitchaiammal, the 2nd wife of Muthusamy Pillai. Pitchaiammal was the 1st daughter of Thayumanasamy and Mangaiyarkarasi. The son Chellaiah died at around 7 years and thus, a grave memorial was dedicated in his memory. The 1st wife of Muthusamy Pillai was Seethalakshmi. The contesting respondents 11 & 12 are grand- children and great grand-children.
8/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.828 of 2024
15. Pitchaiammal is stated to have executed a Will dated 07.04.1987 in favour of Kalyanasundaram, who is the son of Muthusamy Pillai through his 1st wife Seethalakshmi.
16. Under the said Will dated 07.04.1987, Pitchaiammal appointed Thayumanasamy and Muniyandi, the sons of Kalyanasundaram as Trustees to manage the properties including the Samadhi. The said Thayumanasamy and the 11th respondent Muniyandi are the children of Kalyanasundaram through the 2nd wife of Mookammal.
17. It is informed by both the petitioner herein and the respondents 11 and 12, the said Pitchaiammal, the daughter of Mangaiyarkarasi and Thayumanasamy had no legal heirs and through the 1st wife Seethalakshmi, Muthusamy sired one Kalyanasundaram. As per the Will dated 07.04.1987 executed by Pitchaiammal, Thayumanasamy and Muniyandi were appointed, who are the step sons of Kalyanasundaram as Trustees. The son of Kalyanasundaram himself was again married twice to one Sundaram Ammal and Mookammal.
9/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.828 of 2024
18. The children through the 1st wife of Kalyanasundaram namely, Shanmuga Vadivu and the grandchildren namely, Shanthi and Prabhu are not party to the dispute here.
19. The dispute has arisen from the children and grandchildren of Mookammal, the 2nd wife of Kalyanasundaram. Mookammal and the said Kalyanasundaram had three children namely, Suseela, Thayumanasamy and Muniyandi [Respondent No.11]. It appears that the said Thayumanasamy was managing the Samadhi of Thiraviam Pillai and the said Chelliah. The children of the daughter Suseela namely, Rani, Kalyanasundaram, Thiraviam and Chitra are not parties to the dispute. The son Thayamanasamy died on 28.11.2008. Through Thayumanasamy, the 2 nd son of Kalyanasundarm and Mookammal namely, Thayumanasamy and his wife Jeyarani, there are four children namely, Sharmila, Vivega, Smeetha and Shanthees [12th respondent herein].
20. According to the petitioner, respondents 11 & 12 are alienating the assets in respect of which two Wills have been executed by Rani Ponnammal on 27.01.1961 and Pitchaiammal on 07.04.1987. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner had given a representation to the H.R. & C.E. 10/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.828 of 2024 Department to take over the Samadhi under their control in view of the provisions of the H.R. & C.E. Act, 1959.
21. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 11 & 12 would submit that the land in question does not qualify the definition of Section 6(20), 6(15) and 6(16) of the H.R. & C.E. Act, 1959.
22. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.Kasturi Vs. D.Ponnammal and others reported in AIR 1961 SC 1302 (Civil Appeal No.373 of 1956 dated 23.02.1961) dismissed the case against the father of the petitioner because there the Late Mr.Diraviyam Pillal's wife did not opt for adopting either Mr.Kasthuria Pillai or Mr.Kalyanasundaram (Pitchaiammal's co-wife's son) as wished by the said Late. Mr.Diraviyam Pillal. The above case is no way connected to the present case questioning the sale of the temple trust properties by the 11th respondent fraudulently even without obtaining the signature of his own son Mr.Muthu Nivas @ Muthu Srinivas. Also, closing the temple from 2008 after the death of his own brother Mr.Thayumanasamy on 28.11.2008.
23. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even 11/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.828 of 2024 assuming that Mr.Kasthuria Pillai's claim was negatived, then why Mrs.Pitchaiammal (daughter of Thayumanasamy brother of Mr.Diraviyam Pillai) has bequeathed some properties to the said Mr.Kasthuria Pillai (grandfather of the petitioner herein) through Will dated 17.06.1971.
24. The writ petitioner came to know that even the cultivating tenants have given a complaint before the H.R. & C.E. officials that temple lands are sold against the interest of the trust formed for the administration of the temple. Nowhere in the trust, it is mentioned as Samadhi. But in turn, it is stated that Samadhi of Chellaiah is inside the temple. Hence the character of temple cannot be taken away as held in a judgment of this Court in S.A. (MD)No.880 of 2014, dated 10.07.2015. It is therefore crystal clear that the respondents 11 & 12 tried to convert the temple into Samadhi even to an extent of placing even the asthis of the dead of their kith and kin.
25. The learned counsel further submitted that the Sthapathi who is arrayed as 10th respondent has also mentioned that Aani Thirumanjanam used to celebrate with pompand show. During this festival, Arulmigu Meenakshi Amman used to visit this temple. This also adds to the character of temple, which will no way lose its definition of Temple as held in the 12/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.828 of 2024 judgment cited in 1937 (2) MLJ (Para 4).
26. It is submitted that in all reports submitted by H.R. & C.E. Inspector and Assistant Commissioner, it is particularly stated that “,itfs; jtpu M';fh';nf epht; hfpfspd; Kd;ndhh;fspd; `nghl;nlh itf;fg;gl;Ls;sd/ nghl;nlhf;fSf;Ff; fPH;
mth;fspd; m!;jpfs; itf;fg;gl;Ls;sjhft[k;.
mth;fspd; ,we;j nghl;nlhf;fs; jpjp md;W tpsf;F nghl;L g{i$ bra;J tUtjhft[k; bjuptpj;jdh;/”
27. The aforesaid statement reveals that the intention of the authorities is to deal the same only as Samadhi. Only when the forefathers' dead body is buried it is meant as Samadhi. But here the Asthi (ashes of the dead) is placed in the temple, which shows the ill-motive of the respondents 11 & 12 to swindle the vast properties of the temple and the noble wish of the founder of the trust is also spoiled in toto. Further, the stone carvings are make-believe story, which is recently placed i.e. after 2010 to change the character of the temple.
28. The learned counsel for the respondents submit that the basic document i.e., the Trust Deed dated 14.12.1945 executed by one Mrs.Rani 13/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.828 of 2024 Ponnammal, clearly says that the Temple is a private one, made for the welfare of family members alone and except the family members no one has right to enter into the Temple and do Pooja and it should always be treated as private one, no amount shall be received from anyone under any form and the Petitioner has clearly averred and admitted in Paragraph Nos.15 & 16 of the affidavit regarding the character and position of the so called Temple stating that nobody visited the Temple and the same is not opened for anyone.
29. It is submitted that Sections 6(15), 6(16) & 6(18) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 says about the person having interest in the Temple and the petitioner claims to be the family members based upon adoption of her father Kasthuriya Pillai. But it is held by the competent civil court in O.S.No.126/1946, on the file of the Sub-Court, that there was no adoption and in fact, her father prayed for mandatory injunction against Rani Ponnammal, the founder of the Trust to adopt him but the same was negatived and the same was confirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.Kasturi vs. D.Ponnammal and Ors. reported in AIR 1961 SC 1302 (Civil Appeal No.373 of 1956 dated 23.02.1961) and as such, the claim of adoption is a re-litigation and abuse of process of law 14/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.828 of 2024 after 6 decades.
30. Through the genealogy produced before this Court the petitioner makes another claim as if her mother Indira is an adopted daughter of 3rd wife of Thayumanasamy namely Kanniammal, but, this is not the case at any point of time in the earlier litigation where the father of petitioner claimed adoption and this is a clear case of abuse of process of law made after 80 years and it is pertinent to note that her mother never claimed such a right. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be an interested person as per Section 6(15) the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
31. It is submitted that the petitioner in her affidavit filed in the earlier writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.2324 of 2023, at Paragraph No.3 has categorically stated that it is a private Temple made for the welfare of the family members and it is submitted that this specific averment is removed in the affidavit filed along with the present writ petition with an intention to mislead this Court, which is highly condemnable as it is clearly case of abuse of process of law.
15/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.828 of 2024
32. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents further submitted that the present writ petition has been filed suppressing all these facts and very cleverly removing one sentence from the earlier affidavit regarding the nature of the family Trust. That sentence from Paragraph No.4 of the affidavit in W.P.(MD)No.2324 of 2023 is extracted as follows:-
"4…………………The Temple is a private Temple made for the welfare of all the family members"
33. It is also submitted that Section 6(16) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 says about ‘religious charity’, but, here, it is not a case of any religious charity. The Trust Deed itself clearly says that it was in the memory of the family members who died and it was established to perform Pooja every year on the death anniversary, more pertinently all the so-called deities are the predecessor of the family, calling them as deity by adding the name of deceased as a prefix in the deitie’s name,
34. Section 6(18) the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 says about ‘religious institution’. Sub-Section (1) includes Samadhi also, but the explanation (1) is very clear that "Samadhi" 16/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.828 of 2024 is a place where the mortal remains of a guru, sadhu of saint is interned and used as a place of public religious worship. Here, it is not a place of public religious worship and also it is not a mortal of any guru, sadhu or saint, but it is the Forefathers' Samadhi of the contesting respondent, which they are worshipping and the same is admitted by the petitioner also.
35. It is submitted that the H.R. & C.E department made an enquiry and inspected the Temple at the instance of the cultivating tenants, who were evicted after a very long legal battle. In fact, the cultivating tenants cannot even make such a claim saying that the Trustee sold the property, when it is a family trust nobody have any right to question it, more particularly, the cultivating tenants, who are the very cause for selling the property as they attempted to grab it.
36. Despite the same, the department conducted enquiry and the Inspector, H.R. & C.E Department submitted a report dated 02.07.2015 stating that the Samadhi of Chelliah established, there is no Kodi Maram and within the premises all the photos of the predecessors are available mentioning their date of death and in the bottom of the photos, their Asthi is 17/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.828 of 2024 available. An enquiry was made with the residents of the nearby premises and concluded that it is only a Samadhi of private individual and the Pooja is held only on the date of death anniversary by the family members alone and no public is coming to worship the Temple and no collection is made.
37. The Inspector, H.R. & C.E Department vide his report dated 02.07.2015 also concluded that the complainant herself admitted that there was no Pooja for more than 15 years. In fact, it is not 15 years, the litigation was initiated in 1946, as such, it is for the past 80 years. After the Trust, all the family members of the respondents 11 & 12 are being worshipped by placing their photos and not the petitioner's family member, i.e., her father or mother.
38. It is further submitted that the reliance placed by the petitioner on the report of the Department dated 23.07.2015 is misplaced, since there is no contradiction in the report dated 02.07.2015. This report was given by the Assistant Commissioner based upon the report of the Inspector dated 02.07.2015 referred above and it also confirms the nature of right of the contesting respondent's family alone over the Temple. Another report of the Assistant Commissioner dated .03.2016 also confirms the same thing. 18/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.828 of 2024
39. It is submitted that the petitioner, hand in glove with the cultivating tenants, who were evicted after following due process of law, started this litigation at the instance of the cultivating tenants, as if it is a public Temple and it should be taken over by the Government.
40. Further, it is submitted that when the petitioner claims that she is a family member and is entitled to worship the Temple and even if she intends to become a Trustee of the Temple, she should approach the proper forum after establishing her right as a family member and person having interest as per Section 6(15) the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. But without doing so, on one hand pleaded that it is a private Temple, and other hand asking the Government to take over the administration, which clearly shows the malafide intention and this should be condemned by imposing heavy cost. The intention of the petitioner is to harass the respondents 11 & 12 only.
41. It is also submitted that the Trust Deed clearly says about the inheritance of the office of the administration of the Temple (available in Page No.55 of the main Typed Set, clean copy in Page No.64, at 56 19/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.828 of 2024 regarding Trustee] and it clearly says that after her lifetime, Mrs.Pitchammal shall be the Trustee and thereafter, Mr.Kalyana Sundaram and thereafter, his male heirs. If no such male heirs, then the eldest member in her family shall act as Trustee. In case, if there are no male or female heirs to Mr.Kalyana Sundaram, the last Trustee can appoint a close relative of the family as Trustee.
42. The 11th respondent, who is son of the said Mr.Kalyana Sundaram and the 12th respondent who is the grand-son of Mr.Kalyana Sundaram, i.e., the brother's son of the 11th respondent are acting as Trustees till date. As such, they are entitled to administer the family Temple and properties.
43. It is submitted that when admittedly it is a private Temple as per the Trust Deed, no family member will come forward with a prayer to take over the administration of the Temple. If the petitioner is having interest as the family member, she can file suit seeking inclusion of her in the Trust, but that is not a claim made and the claim was made at the instance of the cultivating tenants, who were evicted and the 10th respondent who is said to be Sthabathi. All those things cannot be considered by this Court in a writ 20/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.828 of 2024 jurisdiction under Article 226 and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
44. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the private respondents as well as the official respondents. From the narration of facts which are also partly in dispute indicate that there are several disputed questions of facts. Prima facie, the subject temple appears to be a memorial of one Chellaiah who died aged about 7 years, the minor son of Mr.Thayumanasami through his 2nd wife Mangayarkarasi. The petitioner herself traces her roots from one Mrs.Kanniammal, the 3rd wife of the said Mr.Thayumanasami.
45. Thus, the petitioner is the grand-daughter of said Mr.Thayumanasami and Mrs.Kanniammal (3rd wife of said Mr.Thaymanasami) through their daughter Mrs.Indira who was married to one Mr.Kasthuria Pillai (N.Kasturi), the adopted son of Mr.Dhiraviyam Pillai, who was the plaintiff in O.S.No.126 of 1946..
46. There are indications that the subject temple is a private temple. 21/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.828 of 2024 In fact, even before this court, in the earlier round of litigation in W.P.(MD) No. 2324 of 2023, the petitioner had asserted in paragraph 4 that the subject temple was a ‘private temple’ for the welfare of all the family members. Thus, the subject temple would not come within the purview of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1950.
47. That apart, there is a long history of litigation in as much as the petitioner’s father i.e., Mr.N.Kasturi who has been referred to as Mr.Kasturia Pillai, had instituted O.S.No. 126 of 1946 before the Sub Court, Madurai. The Court in its judgement had held that the petitioner’s father was not the adopted son of the said Mr.Dhiraviyam Pillai and Mrs.Rani Ponnammal under the Will dated 28.04.1937. The said decision was confirmed by The Principal Bench of the High Court which was later affirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in N.Kasturi Vs. D.Ponnammal & Ors. reported in AIR 1961 SC 1302.
48. Reliance was however placed by the petitioner on a subsequent Will dated 17.06.1971 executed by Mrs.Pitchaiammal in favour of the 22/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.828 of 2024 petitioner's father i.e., Mr.Kasthuria Pillai. The Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot dwell into questions of facts, much less disputed questions of facts.
49. In view of the aforementioned reasons and also, considering the fact that the present writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 26.07.2017 has been filed belatedly in the year 2024, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the petitioners are at liberty to pursue their remedy in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
03.01.2025
smn-2/mrr
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Speaking Order (or) Non-Speaking Order
To
1.The Principal Secretary,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
Fort St.George, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
23/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.828 of 2024
2.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
3.The District Collector,
Madurai District, Madurai.
4.The Joint Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
Ellis Nagar, Madurai.
5.The Assistant Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department,
Madurai.
6.The Tahsildar,
Vadipatti Taluk,
Madurai District.
7.The Commissioner of Police,
Alagarkovil Road,
Madurai City, Madurai – 625 002.
8.The Superintendent of Police,
Idol Wing – CID,
Police Training College – First Floor,
Ashok Nagar,
Chennai – 600 083.
9.The Block Development Officer,
Madurai, Madurai District.
24/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.828 of 2024
C.SARAVANAN, J.
smn2/mrr
Pre-Delivery Order in
W.P.(MD) No.828 of 2024
03.01.2025
25/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis